Excerpts from recent South Dakota editorials

A proposal by a bipartisan panel has the potential to shed more light on campaign contributions in South Dakota while cutting out the middleman.

Now, businesses, labor unions and other organizations that want to contribute to a candidate for a statewide office can only do so by funneling money through a political action committee, or PAC, which then makes the contribution to the candidate.

It is a system that seems to mostly favor PACs and their officers, who can use the funds as a way to curry favor with the candidates. It also makes it difficult for the public to learn what organization is contributing to a candidate unless one has experience at finding and translating campaign-finance reports.

The system also allows businesses, labor unions and others to donate as much as $10,000 apiece to as many PACs as they please or can establish for the candidate.

It appears the proposal would allow the same organizations to contribute directly to the candidates but not limit them to what individuals can contribute, which is $4,000 a year to a gubernatorial candidate and a $1,000 a year to a legislative candidate.

This possible proposal and others are the result of a panel assembled by Secretary of State Shantel Krebs that has three Democrats, including Linda Lea Viken of Rapid City, and Tony Venhuizen, the chief of staff for Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard. It is charged with looking at the state's campaign-finance laws and introducing legislation in the upcoming session.

The panel also discussed changing reporting requirements, especially as they concern lawmakers who contribute to their peers, establishing an independent review board to rule on campaign-finance complaints, and whether lawmakers can use campaign contributions for personal reasons once they leave office.

The panel will continue to fine-tune its proposals before they are considered by the Legislature and other state government entities like the Board Of Elections.

So while there is a long road ahead for campaign reform and those who will ultimately decide on it could be among the beneficiaries of the current system, it is nonetheless gratifying to see that Krebs is leading an effort to hopefully make the process more transparent and the candidates and their contributors more accountable.

As we all know, money talks in politics. The problem is that the public rarely hears about it until after the election if at all.

____

The Daily Republic, Mitchell, Sept. 15, 2016

Amendment V good choice for South Dakota

Now here's something conservatives, moderates and liberals can agree on.

This November, South Dakotans will head to polling places with chance to step away from the partisan bickering that pervades our federal and state government at every turn.

With that in mind, we believe Amendment V is good for South Dakotans. Amendment V, which is backed by various Republicans, independents and Democrats, would remove a candidate's political party affiliation from the ballot, forcing candidates to depend on their qualifications and ideas rather than relying on the political machine to propel them into office.

We know South Dakotans are capable of making intelligent choices whether a political party is listed on the ballot or not. But removing the party label — a designation that pigeonholes our legislators into a rigid set of ideas they feel they must stick to in an effort to avoid backlash from their fellow party members — lawmakers would be beholden to the voters of South Dakota, not their political party.

Perhaps more importantly, Amendment V would remove the partisan primaries restricting political participation in our great state.

If you're one of 113,156 registered independents in South Dakota, and you happen to lean to the ideological right, you'll find yourself barred from voting in the state's Republican primary. Fortunately for the 21 percent of South Dakotans who choose not to affiliate with a political party, Amendment V would wipe the primary slate clean.

No longer would the state's 531,584 registered voters be restricted from one primary or the other. Each South Dakotan of voting age would be free to to support whichever candidate they choose.

We believe South Dakota's political leaders should be advocating measures that make participation in the political process more accessible, and Amendment V does just that.

If approved, Amendment V would create one primary, open to all voters, where the most popular candidates — regardless of their political affiliation — would advance to the general election in November. This could mean two Republicans advance and square off in a gubernatorial race, or two Democrats could battle for a seat in the state Senate. But, if that's the will of the voters, so be it.

So we encourage South Dakotans to take the time to review Amendment V and all of the other measures on the ballot in November.

And with Amendment V, we believe voters tired of partisan gridlock and ballot restrictions will join us in support of the amendment.

____

Aberdeen American News, Aberdeen, Sept. 13,2016

Pipeline protesters missed chanced two years ago

Often, it is easier to get outraged than to get involved.

That is the thought we are left with as protests at the Dakota Access Pipeline's North Dakota construction site continue.

The right to assemble, and peacefully but passionately state a case is to be applauded.

But where were those voices — in the Dakotas, around the nation — for the two preceding years that the Dakota Access Pipeline was being planned and permitted?

We can only muster some guesses.

In 2014 and 2015, the national conversation was dominated by the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline, moving oil across international borders.

The Dakota Access line, by contrast, was simpler, smaller — originating at the Bakken oil field of North Dakota, through this region of South Dakota and then on to Illinois and beyond.

As far as oil pipeline outrage goes, Dakota Access was under the radar for most.

But not all. Readers of this newspaper, for instance, have been seeing the words "Dakota Access" and "Energy Transfer Partners" since 2014.

In fact, American News correspondent Bob Mercer in Pierre wrote, on Dec. 19, 2014, "The state Public Utilities Commission will have meetings in four South Dakota communities next month regarding a proposed crude oil pipeline.

"A company called Dakota Access, based in Houston, applied this week to the PUC for a permit to build and operate the 271.6-mile segment through eastern South Dakota. . The PUC plans meetings on Jan. 21 in Bowdle at the school gymnasium . and in Redfield at the school auditorium .".

None of these meetings was a secret. At no time, to the best of our knowledge, were any voices silenced during these lead-up to permitting Dakota Access.

In fact, we spoke with landowners who were concerned about the 900-mile pipeline, cutting through Campbell, McPherson, Edmunds, Faulk and Spink counties.

Were any players left out of those conversations?

Maybe it is the national media that feels left out. They have turned their attention to Cannon Ball, N.D., and surrounding environs. There has been solid reporting, but the timing is awful; national media has shown up to the football game after the halftime show.

Then there are the opportunists, such as Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein. She has been absent from any significant conversation on this topic, but very willing to deface private property (in this case, spray-painting construction equipment) in an effort to get some name recognition.

And though this pipeline has gone through every approval process, now the federal government makes the politically expedient move of trying to slow progress.

Unacceptable.

Do not read this editorial as an endorsement of the pipeline but, rather, an endorsement of a process — a process that, again, did not sneak up on the Department of Justice, the Department of the Army and the Department of the Interior, etc.

We deplore any violence from either party. Video released over the weekend purporting to show Energy Transfer Partners security using dogs to intimidate and possibly attack protesters is disturbing. If that is the reason the federal government is getting involved, where Morton County, N.D., law enforcement isn't, then that is to be commended.

There are the sincere protesters at the site, who are deeply concerned about the environment and traditional and sacred lands. They should be allowed to protest, as long as they remain peaceful, and off of private land.

Maybe the lesson here for businesses and state government is that some groups do need a more proactive invitation to the conversation. Early buy-in and cooperation would have been critical to getting this pipeline in progress today.

But getting involved in those meetings and conversations at the conceptual stage is hard; sharing videos and expressing outrage behind a keyboard is easy.